Gaming has changed. It's no longer about art, expression, or fun. Games development, and its consumption of our cash, has become a well-oiled machine. Gaming has changed. ID tag gamers play ID tag games on ID tag consoles, use ID tag controllers. Everything is monitored, and kept under control. Gaming has changed. The age of games as art has become the age of control, all in the name of averting catastrophe from pirating and used games sales. and he who controls video games, controls the living room. Gaming has changed, when your console is under total control, gaming becomes routine....

Hey all, it's me again. I thought I'd talk a bit about my fears for the future of the video game industry, and how the recent Xbox One unveiling has rekindled those fears. In fact, Microsoft has done a pretty excellent job of taking every gamer's worst fears and turning them into a reality. This is hardly a problem exclusive to Microsoft, however. As short-sighted corporations compromise the artistic integrity of developers and gouge their games to make a quick buck, it's the consumer who will have to pay in a few years down the line.

I'll take the console that can do more.

Put a cartridge into your old SNES or N64. You might have to blow on it a bit, but odds are, if you've been taking care of your console, it's still working. When you boot it up, you aren't greeted with a message saying "sorry, our servers are busy, try again". You just get in and play your game, the one you own. It's as simple as that. Right down to the durable hardware, these games were built to last.

Compare this to the wonders of modern-day gaming. AAA releases almost always ship with several special editions, meaning you could end up blocked off from certain in-game content unless you buy from multiple major retailers at once. Entire portions of our games are being sectioned off and sold to us separately in the form of day-one DLC and online passes. Some games have content that a lot of players will never experience, because they did the smart thing and chose not to pre-order. Sadly, things only get worse from there. In order to better monitor their customers and control their products post-purchase, publishers have adopted the idea of forcing you to be online... to play offline.

Some simply shrug off Microsoft's Internet requirement because they think everyone has Internet. Truthfully, not everyone does. It's not fair to completely disregard that demographic entirely by saying they don't deserve to use the console at all simply because it isn't connected to the Internet all the time. When I first got my PS3, I couldn't connect to the Internet with my set-up at the time. I eventually got Internet, but had my console been incapable of performing its primary function without it, I wouldn't have bought it.

To further elaborate on "always online", I think most people have this misconception wherein they believe simply having an Internet connection is enough. Sadly, there's two sides to this problem. We're still at the whim of our Internet provider. Your Internet will go down, and when it does, you can't play. Sometimes this will only be for a few hours, sometimes for a day or two, but when that happens, you're not allowed to use your property. As the SimCity launch and PSN Outage has shown us, their servers won't always be up either. In fact, Microsoft's servers have gone down as well. If there's one good thing I can say about the PSN Outage, It'd be that my console wasn't rendered inoperable for the entire duration of that fiasco. We are at the whim of both Microsoft and our Internet provider. Essentially, you only play your games when they say it's okay. That's not right.

I don't want to live in this world any more, then.

Another problem this poses is that it puts up another barricade between the player and their games. When you buy a new game, you have to input a code if you want to play online. Then, you have to install a patch (or patches) of varying length, because it's become acceptable to ship games in a near-broken condition. These things are annoying, and do require an Internet connection, but without one, you can simply forgo those things and enjoy your single player game. Now Microsoft has come in and made this worse. Now you'll have to log in and register your game, just to make sure you aren't a filthy pirate or worse... borrowing the game from a friend. The first two things are annoying, but negligible. This new thing however, locks you out of the game entirely.

Apologists might cite multiplayer games and MMO’s as examples of why an always-online policy is perfectly acceptable, but this logic is severely flawed. Those games are multiplayer. When the servers shut down, it's a shame, but there's no way around that. The problem we face is different. When the servers for the original Xbox went down, it was a real shame that people couldn't frag and teabag each other in the first two Halogames. Of course, they are both great games, and one can still enjoy the campaign to this day. Now imagine if they took the single player along with it. Not only would that suck, it'd be unjustified. Multiplayer servers are shut down because they can't justify keeping them up with small user bases. A single player game doesn't (or should I say, shouldn't) need a connection, and thus can be played on your own terms, until the end of time, for all they care. The inherent difference here is that the parts of the games that needed a connection, whereas single player games do not. Let me give you an example of a game made better by multiplayer that isn't forced on you: Dark Souls. Despite being a single player game, there are multiplayer aspects seamlessly woven in. These features being present don't hinder the single player at all, and if you aren't connected at the time, those features are obviously inaccessible, as they need an Internet connection by their nature. However, single player doesn't need Internet, and it never will. The Xbox One wants to take the industry a step back by imposing an all-or-nothing restriction on all their games.

Consider this. Since Microsoft wants to control what I can do with my games and when I can play them, shouldn't we have the right to tell Microsoft how and when to spend the money we gave them? No, because the transaction is over. We own the product, they get our money. That’s how it works. This isn't a loan.

The Xbox One: Oceania favourite console!

This does not enhance the console. In fact, instead of creating a console With potential, Microsoft has decided to take the low road and create a console with more restrictions than features. Kinect could have been a cool addition, but that's overshadowed by the fact that you aren't allowed to play your games without it. Notice I didn't say you couldn't. You aren't allowed, because Microsoft put that arbitrary limitation there. This is a console held back not by technological limitations, but greed. Internet access is great for enhancing your experience, but again, forcing it only causes your console to become weaker. Give us innovative online features, but at the same time, understand that Internet access isn't a guaranteed constant, so requiring it will only weaken your console in the long run.

Contrary to common belief, not everyone has Internet readily available to their console. Shrugging it off by saying “everyone has Internet” displays an egregious amount of wilful ignorance that is simply unfair to those people. Ask yourself: what do we as consumers gain from this, and does it really merit excluding a sizeable portion of the fanbase and punishing the rest?

Simply “having” online isn't enough. When your Internet goes down (and it will, trust me), you shouldn't be forbidden from using your property. When Microsoft’s servers go down (and they will, trust me), the consumer shouldn't be the one getting punished. When Microsoft’s fails to hold up their end of the bargain, we have to suffer another “Error 37”, only this time, on a console-wide scale.

Expect to see a lot of this.

An always online console would mean that console would essentially become dead in matter of years. Once they have your money, they don’t need to remove this needless restriction. Why should they? They clearly don’t care about their fans or their public reception, so I see no reason for them to remove this. Of course, this is long-term, so buying this console means putting a ridiculous amount of faith into an amoral corporation that treats you like a criminal instead of a customer. Why put trust in Microsoft, when they don’t trust you enough to play your own games without asking their permission first on a daily basis? Something to think about.

The Xbox One was revealed yesterday, and was met with a fair bit of negative backlash. Was this deserved, or were all the fanboys wrong to ever criticise so prematurely? Well, as it turns out, Microsoft has confirmed our every fear, and then some. Whether you want a smart TV or a gaming rig, it looks like this system isn't designed with anyone in mind. Whereas Sony seemed eager to give us a list of things we can do on their new console, Microsoft have more restrictions than anything else. Here are just a few of the problems with Xbox One, right out of the gate:

It Doesn't Have Backwards Compatibility

This is by far the least offensive of this system's sin. Still, it's a missed opportunity on which Microsoft could have capitalised. More recent PS3 models cannot play PS2 games, and the PS4 won't have any backwards compatibility whatsoever. If the Xbox One could play your extensive backlog of Xbox 360 titles, this would have been one small step over the competition. It also doesn't help that, like the PS4, your PSN purchases won't transfer over. Unfortunately, this is just one more way the next Xbox will be lacking in terms of versatility.

Indie Developers Aren't Allowed to Self-Publish

It seems that everywhere you look, there's another restriction on the Xbox One. As it turns out, independent developers will no longer be allowed to self-publish on Microsoft's new console. Now, not only are consumers limited when it comes to what their product can do, developers are being restricted as well. To be clear, they can still release their titles on Xbox Live Indie Games, where they will inevitably be buried under a mountain of shitty games. In order to publish their games on Xbox Live Arcade, they would have to get some kind of publishing deal directly with Microsoft, or some other third party developer. Of course, Microsoft's competition has no such limitation. Gee, I wonder where indie developers will take their games now?

You Have to Pay More Money for Used Games

One nice feature the Xbox 360 had over the PlayStation 3 was how it gave you the choice to install or not. Notice the word I used there: "choice". You as the consumer had the right to weigh your options and decide whether or not you wanted to have your console read the game from your disc or your hard drive. Microsoft has since done a 180 on the idea of versatility and choice by removing that option altogether. Installs are now mandatory, meaning that 500GB just got a lot smaller. Of course, it doesn't help that the actual amount available isn't actually 500 at all, but I digress.

So why was this done? Well, I suspect the primary reason for this was to justify their anti-used games policies. Reports indicate that you may be able to play the same game on the same system, but that's hardly of any consolation when I can't even loan my games out to my friend. Not only did Microsoft confirm everyone's fears about not being able to use your used games, they took it one step further. You can play a used game... if you pay a fee. This alone is an atrocious thing to do, but it gets worse. If you aren't playing on the original account, you have to pay full price just to access the content, unless you use parental controls. This would utterly annihilate the second-hand market for the Xbox One, as buying used would end up costing more than new. Once again, Microsoft is leading the pack in innovation... when it comes to screwing over your customer.

It Won't Work Without Kinect, a Device that Doesn't Work

What's better than the Kinect, a gimmicky device that is annoying and unresponsive? Forcing us to use it, whether we like it or not! This could well be one of the most idiotic things Microsoft has ever done, and that's saying something. As if Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor wasn't enough to show people who unreliable the Kinect is, Microsoft takes it a step further by mandating it in order to make the console work. According to the system's FAQ:

"The all new Kinect is now an essential and integrated part of the platform. By having it as a consistent part of every Xbox One, game and entertainment creators can build experiences that assume the availability of voice, gesture and natural sensing, leading to unrivaled ease of use, premium experiences and interactivity for you."

Because giving the customer exactly what they don't want and didn't ask for is a brilliant idea.

The novelty of using the words "Kinect" and "consistent" aside, this does not bode well at all. How exactly will this device be essential for the system to function? We already know it won't be mandated across every game, so what the hell is the point? Look, don't get me wrong. The Kinect has been used for lots of cool things before, like voice commands in games such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Mass Effect 3. These were great features, but they were optional. If you have to use your voice or body in-game, then this is just another arbitrary limitation. If they're optional, then the Kinect should be too.

You Need to be Online to Play Offline

Yes, even everyone's worst fear has come true. In order to play any games at all, you must have an Internet connection. Think about how ludicrous that statement is. You need Internet to play offline. The system requires you to log on once a day to prove you own the games you own. Why? Because they don't trust you, and you have to prove you aren't a criminal to this corporation on a daily basis (or more). Don't have Internet one day? You can't play. When the servers go down? You can't play. We are assured of course that "bits of the system will work offline", which makes the entire system seem stupidly underpowered for absolutely no good reason. I want a system with complete functionality. I want a system capable of preforming it's primary function.

This is by far the biggest failure of the Microsoft corporation. Despite an overwhelming and unanimous backlash against the idea, Microsoft decided to go ahead and screw over their customer. What about people who don't have an Internet connection? What about people who live in a home in which an Internet connection to their console isn't possible? What about people who simply don't want Live? You've essentially told all those people that they shouldn't buy your system. If someone doesn't have an Internet connection, they have no reason to purchase an Xbox One. I bet the PS4, with it's optional online component, seems awfully tempting, though.

Winner: PS4

This restriction will turn off a large amount of people from buying the console at all. Aside from that ingenious business decision, there are even more who are simply going to be turned off by this unethical business practice. We're living in a time in which developers can outright lie to their consumers and falsely advertise their products... and get away with it. Publishers and developers should be working hard to earn our trust, and yet I'm treated like a criminal if you can't check in on me constantly. We're dealing with a system that has a camera constantly watching you, a microphone always listening to you, and an Internet service that prevents you from playing games unless you can prove you own the games you bought by checking in on a daily basis. This makes me want to boycott the system outright, for fear of supporting the vile people who think this is how they should sell a system.

What's worse however, is how this could affect the system long-term. When the next console generation rolls around, what's going to happen to all the games we purchased? If we need to log on once a day to play, what happens when the servers go down? Will be still be able to play our games? I can tell you one thing: Microsoft doesn't care. They already have your money. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go boot up my PS2, and play some single player games. Why? Because I can.

How Microsoft Failed

With the PS4, I'm excited by all the things I can do. With the Xbox One, I'm amazed at all the things I can’t do. Therein lies the difference between these two systems: one is dedicated to exploring new and exciting ways to enhance your gaming experience, and the other is dedicated to stifling it. With Sony, they made it feel as though all their features pertained to gaming somehow. It piqued my interest as a gamer, because the PS4 aims to make my gaming experience better. The Xbox One is more interested in screwing us over than delivering any kind of gaming system.

Of course, people say we should wait. When these were just rumours, they told us to wait for the reveal. Now that they've revealed the console and confirmed the rumours, the Xbox apologists say we should wait for E3. After E3, they'll say we should wait for release. Tell me, why should we give the Microsoft corporation the benefit of the doubt when they don't trust us enough to play our games without us logging on and getting their permission first?

This next generation is shaping up to be less of a console war and more of a slaughter.

You could buy an Xbox One, a console that cannot function without an Internet connection or a Kinect, a gimmicky addition that no one liked or wanted. You could buy an Xbox One, which can’t play your 360 games, and forces you pay for games again if you try to borrow them from a friend, or even dare to play on a different account. You could buy from Microsoft, a company that doesn't trust you and treats you like a criminal. You could by the Xbox One, a system full of arbitrary and obtuse limitations, or you could just buy a PS4, and avoid all that bullshit altogether. Thanks for making that choice easy, Microsoft.

It's been hyped for a while now. After a slew of bad press and worse public reception management, the Xbox reveal is or was Microsoft's chance to win consumers over to their side. There's still E3 of course, but if Microsoft stays their current course, I don't see them doing very well at all this generation. After watching a short, somewhat tepid reveal, I had only one response: "is that all you got?"

I Googled "Xbox One" and this was the first image that popped up.

Despite a laundry list of buzz words, I wasn't exactly impressed. I expect a healthy amount of lies and bullshit at these kinds of events, but there was little substance to back up the hype here. It felt like Microsoft was trying their best to make up for a severe lack of actual gaming content. It seems clear that Microsoft had nothing of value to bring to the table, and is just banking on hype at this point. Hey, here's a good drinking game. Watch the reveal, and take a shot every time someone says “innovation”. You'll be wasted in no time.
Aside from some flaccid attempts at over-hyping gimmicky integration with social media and television services, there wasn't anything of substance to mention. I went into this thing sceptical and came out scared. They showed us one new IP for example, but told us absolutely nothing about it, only giving us pre-rendered footage with little context. What else did we get? EA Sports titles and a Call of Duty game? Seriously? You mean the games that come out on a yearly basis anyway? How anyone gets hyped for What is largely the same game every year escapes me, but did they really expect this to get people excited?

Compare this to what Sony showed us. They unveiled a brand new IP caled Knack, but also showed us two sequels to existing franchises with Killzone: Shadowfall and InFamous: Second Son. What does Xbox have to offer? A few sports games, Call of Duty: Ghosts, and a live-action Halo series, though I feel that this last one was just name-dropped because they felt obligated to mention their flagship franchise, and they had nothing to show us in game form.

Of course, I was really dumbfounded when the Infinity Ward representatives said this: We didn't want to do the safe thing." Ummm yeah. Right. That’s why you annualised your series. But hey, look at how great those dogs look!

Is it really, though?

Microsoft is acting with the same level of arrogance Sony was at the beginning of this generation. They're foolishly moving forward without once considering the repressions of their actions or what their consumer wants. They seem to be making one bad decision after another with this console, and it doesn't look like anyone is looking forward to it. Hell, even the name is horrible. Of all the names you could have chosen, why would you name your new console "Xbox One", the same informal name used for the original Xbox? "Durango" is a better name than that!

It also doesn't help that Microsoft made no mention of "always-online" allegations. This, combined with reports that the Xbox requires a Kinect to function, and that players will be charged to use the same disc on multiple accounts, doesn't paint a pretty picture for the console at all. A racing game, non-identified EA sports titles, and a Halo TV show? Is that all you got? Things aren't looking up for Microsoft, not at all. Honestly, this may have been one of, if not the, most horribly tepid console reveal in the history of gaming.

Recently, as many already know, Adam Orth made a complete Orth of himself and Microsoft with his "deal with it" Tweet, saying that electronics are completely useless unless they have an Internet connection. I appreciate people like Orthy, I really do; comedians are under-appreciated, I think.

Oh.

Unfortunately, he wasn't kidding. Well, he claims some of his comments were just "joking", but I suspect that he's just backpedaling. Ironically, it was a BioWare employee who called him out on his ridiculous ranting. If BioWare is telling you your Tweets are stupid, something is seriously wrong. Apparently, according to Orth, there's no point in playing video games if you don't have an Internet connection. He then went on to cite some of the poorest analogies I've ever seen in my entire life. Let's think about this for a second. Orth says he won't buy a vacuum cleaner if there's no electricity. That' fair. A vacuum cleaner cannot operate without power. However, can a video game console operate without an Internet connection? Absolutely. Thus, this comparison is invalid. A more fitting analogy would a vacuum clearer being unable to operate if one of it's nonessential features wasn't working. That's just silly. According to Adam's logic (if you want to call it that), if you don't have good reception, your cell phone shouldn't display the time, or let you play tetris.

Orth wants every device to be always on. All of them. What about my iPod? If I can't connect to iTunes, should I be barred from the music I own? What if I don't have Internet connection but I want to read the books I own on my Kindle? Can't do that, either I suppose. This isn't the future. This isn't the next big step, like Orth so foolishly believes. It's a big step backwards. Having an online connection is great. It opens a whole new world of possibilities for your console. However, it's not the alpha and omega of gaming. Believe it or not, not everyone plays online. Why should they be left in the dust? I want to do what I want with my console. So long as I'm not breaking the law, what I do is my own business.

Internet justice?

How exactly does this benefit the consumer? It doesn't. This would in no way make "Durango" a better console. Forcing people to always be online doesn't solve anything, as it only punishes the customer. My PS3 is almost always online. I have connection most of the time. When I don't however, I'm not punished for it. If people like Orth have their way, we'll be less connected, not more. This isn't a way of making sure everyone has an internet connection; it's just a way of needlessly punishing those who don't.

One only needs to look at the disastrous launches of Diablo III and SimCity to understand the obvious fallacies with this "always online" mantra. It's a pipe dream. It can't happen. No one has perfect Internet connection, and I know Microsoft's servers sure won't. When they inevitably do go down, why limit what your console can do? This only sets restrictions on your console. The idea that I need to be online to play a single player game is just ludicrous. If I want to be, I'll log on. Think about it. Without this restriction, I can still be online as often as I need to be. However, when my Internet still goes down, I can still enjoy the games I rightfully own on the console I legally obtained. That gives my console more versatility, whereas "always online" gives me less. Having the power go out is unfortunate. Not being able to play my games because my connection is bad, or worse, Microsoft's servers aren't working properly, is an completely avoidable mess. This isn't the future. It's just bullshit.